User talk:Ocatecir/Archive9

Image:Sundevil1.jpg

Doing an review of the fair use statements of images; the image Image:Sundevil1.jpg which you added a rational to is still missing one required item, that being the source of the image. If you are able to provide the source, then I will convert the fair use statment into the new standard format. Thank you for your assistance. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't upload it, not sure where the uploader found it, but I know it was created by the school. — Ocatecir ^T 01:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming committe userbox added

I added the welcoming committee to your userboxes, since I just added myself there and saw you under the list but not the category, so I added a box to your userbox subpage. Figured it was a big enough deal since I messed with your userpage you should get a yellow bar, hence this message. - Optigan13 06:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Slansky

I thought about deleting the article myself, but did a quick google and came up with some references of notability. I was in the process of rewriting the article when you deleted it, so I thought I'd drop you a line to know that I recreated the article with references. It still may not be enough to merit inclusion, but he is more than a speedy candidate. Happy editing to you! Keegan^talk 06:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sorry about that. Article is a lot better now than when I deleted it. It claims notability and therefore is no longer speedy-able. If someone wants it deleted they will have to go through afd. — Ocatecir ^T 06:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert & protect

Why did you revert Buu (continuing the edit war) and protect it to prevent an edit war? I was under the impression that a neutral admin protecting a page from edit warring was supposed to protect the current version. Thanks. -- JHunterJ 11:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it to the version it was in before the revert war began. No one is ever pleased with the version that is protected, so I'm not that worried about it.— Ocatecir ^T 22:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save us.222

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Save us 222. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee t/c 06:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Umm, I don't see my name in the deletion log and I have no recollection of such an article. Not sure how I am involved here.~~— Ocatecir ^T 06:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found it at Save Us.X29. Considering the content of the article I deleted it would be silly and a waste of time discussing its merits. Maybe the other versions of the page had something of value, but what I deleted certainly did not. — Ocatecir ^T 07:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buu

Sesshomaru reverted to the artificial redirect version again - I'm still living in hope that the message will get across, but if you notice it happening again it may require longer-term protection. Cheers, Deiz talk 13:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep an eye on it. — Ocatecir ^T 18:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CrossFit

Thanks for the edits and "wikification" of the CrossFit article (of which I am the principal author.) They are much appreciated.

May I ask you to continue to monitor the page? As you can see from the history, CrossFit has some passionate adherents -- who sometimes go too far in their advocacy.

But the article still has a major deficiency. I have omitted all reference to the insurgent/contrarian mindset of CrossFitters....which is very much a part of the CrossFit growth story. Nor is there any comparison with other fitness methodologies. That's because sources would include the CrossFit site itself... or original research. As you know, both are off limits.

So I'm monitoring mainstream media sources for more explicit mention of the CrossFit insurgency and how it differs from other training regimens. Have you any other ideas? Maybe you could re-read the existing references. Please feel free to insert a sentence or two on CrossFit's contrarianism if you think it justified. Thanks!

76.67.19.250 (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to use the crossfit website as a source. You just can't use it to establish notability, but if you need to use it to show something about its philosophy I would say that is fine.— Ocatecir ^T 01:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Carmel High School (San Diego, California) revert

In regards to your recent revert of the deletion of Robyn Villanueva from the notable alumni list in article Mount Carmel High School (San Diego, California), I was tempted to revert it myself until I noticed the the reference link makes no mention of her attending the school. As such, it would seem to fall into the category of original research and therefor not allowed. Any thoghts on the subject? Dbiel ^(Talk) 05:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same IP that deleted the entry also changed the link on November 20. The old link mentions she went to Mt. Carmel. I will add the old link back into the article. — Ocatecir ^T 06:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply Dbiel ^(Talk) 05:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]